3 ms·

> a ruling by a lower court which sets a very dangerous precedent There's no precedent of any kind being set here. Court orders have to be obeyed unless overtu

> a ruling by a lower court which sets a very dangerous precedent There's no precedent of any kind being set here. Court orders have to be obeyed unless overturned, this isn't an unprecedented 2024 thing. France has a civil law legal system, not the precedent based common law legal system (like the US for example). This court set no legal precedent, it issued a ruling on this particular case. > I would expect a company like Google to appeal this If they have solid legal grounds to appeal. Are you aware of one? > rather than just comply Assume ceasing the service entirely is costing them more than complying. > Who's going to fine them? As far as I'm aware, DNS is pretty much unregulated. A court, for not respecting a court order. The legal system and law in general are almost never common sense and there's a reason it takes so much work and experience to navigate them properly. If you've done none of that work, assume you're wrong. If you're a techie and you start hearing people insist with personal opinions on how those RAM traces should be made longer and straighter you'd wonder why they keep talking.

glimshe 2y ago
Lawyers are pretty good at finding reasons to appeal against judgements. It is reasonable to suggest that Google should appeal despite the parent not being aware of reasons for appealing. You are mostly right on the civil vs common law systems, but also have in mind that a sufficient body of decisions when interpreting a law do create increasingly stronger recommendations for future decisions even in civil systems.
- buran77 2y ago
  > Lawyers are pretty good at finding reasons to appeal against judgements. Good ones sure are. But OP saying "Google should appeal" implies OP is aware of one solid such reason, a reason why the French court was wrong, and Google was wrong to comply. Instead they just mentioned precedents, lower courts, or that you're free to ignore a legal court order because there's no "DNS regulation". I get that Google has a vested interest to find any way to make it work because it supports their business. But OP's statement sounded to me more like "I don't understand the law but don't like the result so it should be changed", with no solid reasoning of any kind at the time of the statement.

glimshe 2y ago

Lawyers are pretty good at finding reasons to appeal against judgements. It is reasonable to suggest that Google should appeal despite the parent not being aware of reasons for appealing. You are mostly right on the civil vs common law systems, but also have in mind that a sufficient body of decisions when interpreting a law do create increasingly stronger recommendations for future decisions even in civil systems.

buran77 2y ago
> Lawyers are pretty good at finding reasons to appeal against judgements. Good ones sure are. But OP saying "Google should appeal" implies OP is aware of one solid such reason, a reason why the French court was wrong, and Google was wrong to comply. Instead they just mentioned precedents, lower courts, or that you're free to ignore a legal court order because there's no "DNS regulation". I get that Google has a vested interest to find any way to make it work because it supports their business. But OP's statement sounded to me more like "I don't understand the law but don't like the result so it should be changed", with no solid reasoning of any kind at the time of the statement.